5 ms·

My question is mostly just "how do we draw the line in the sand?" The fact is that if mask-wearing and lockdowns prevent the spread of this virus, they'll work

My question is mostly just "how do we draw the line in the sand?" The fact is that if mask-wearing and lockdowns prevent the spread of this virus, they'll work for the flu too. If there is a moral imperative to use these methods for COVID, why would there not also be a moral imperative to use them for the flu? Where do you draw the line?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The line has been drawn, historically, at somewhere between a "normal" flu and the Spanish Flu of 1918. And that matters, because it sets the default on what people are inclined to accept.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  The line is drawn based on hospital capacity. We have enough capacity for flu, because of immunity and vaccinations. We don't have enough for Covid.
ibrarmalik 6y ago
If you have the flu you should wear a mask. We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, these methods don't make much sense for the flu.
- nradov 6y ago
  Many influenza cases are asymptomatic, and they can transmit the virus. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_103105.html https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_1...
- collyw 6y ago
  > We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, We are doing these so that politicians can be seen to be "doing something". Not because there is any evidence that they work or are effective
belltaco 6y ago
False equivalency. Hospitals don't overflow with flu patients every winter. Meanwhile just in Italy and NY, hospitals were overflowing with Covid patients with only a fraction of people exposed to it compared to the billions exposed to the flu every year. Same with the number of deaths. 65,000 in a really bad flu season in the US with hundreds of millions exposed to it, and Covid already has exceed that with only about 20% exposed to the virus.
- fastball 6y ago
  It's not a false equivalency because I'm not saying the two diseases are equivalent. I'm asking where we draw the line. Yes the flu is less severe than COVID-19. The question is not which is worse. It is how many lives do we need to save with these measures in order to make it "worth it"? Who determines that? How do we determine that? We apparently decided it is worth it for COVID-19. Ok, but then why not for the flu. It kills people too, just not as many. What about something in between the flu in COVID in terms of lethality?
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    I don’t know what to tell you, we should have probably banned tobacco a long time ago. You’re arguing against a kafkacracy, not scientists.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Ok, but then why not for the flu. It kills people too, just not as many. Literally because of "just not as many" part. Yes, real world policies do some cold calculations about "how many people die" and have arbitrary lines. Arbitrary lines are actually ok. Better then arbitrary line on either "never ever" or "totally all the time" extreme. Also, we literally close schools when flu get out of control in some area - for a week or so and that is enough for flu to get under control. There is also huge push for flu vaccines each year. It is not true that no flu management is done, there is a lot of flu management going on. Like, I dont know whether it is consequences of two party system, but the whole "we either lock everything for every reason or never nothing at all" and "we cant possibly think in probabilities and death rates and nuance" is frankly, idiotic.
WildParser 6y ago
Do lockdowns help? A lot of countries with hard lockdowns had really bad curves. A slow fire maybe sometimes burns better. A place where everybody gets infected can maybe be more dangerous for visitors when you increase the time the infection is going on?! Do masks help? Do they reduce immunity by eliminating some light contacts? Do they allow to transfer the virus without being infected? For sure you wouldn't like to have doctors (treating e.g. Ebola patients) go shopping and exhaling through their contaminated masks. Is there any epidemiological evidence that masks helped? Data using "reporting date" often shows trend changes around mask measures. Taking a look at "date of death" data those trend changes usually are gone. Why is so little "date of death" data available?
afpx 6y ago
In the US, 40,000 deaths per year for typical flu. Currently, we have 275,0000 deaths from covid over 9 months even with social interventions. And, that’s not considering the under-reporting of deaths. And, before March 2021, we’ll see another 200k deaths. Where do we draw the line? As with most complex things, it requires a careful balance of trade-offs. And, when there’s a lot of uncertainty and risk, it’s good to be cautious at first.
collyw 6y ago
It would be reasonable to conclude that countries where mask wearing is common (South Korea, Japan) would have lower rates of deaths from flu. It doesn't appear to be the case.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

The line has been drawn, historically, at somewhere between a "normal" flu and the Spanish Flu of 1918. And that matters, because it sets the default on what people are inclined to accept.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
The line is drawn based on hospital capacity. We have enough capacity for flu, because of immunity and vaccinations. We don't have enough for Covid.

ibrarmalik 6y ago

If you have the flu you should wear a mask. We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, these methods don't make much sense for the flu.

nradov 6y ago
Many influenza cases are asymptomatic, and they can transmit the virus. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_103105.html https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2005/cbnreport_1...
collyw 6y ago
> We are enforcing mask-wearing and doing lockdowns because of COVID asymptomatic infections, We are doing these so that politicians can be seen to be "doing something". Not because there is any evidence that they work or are effective

belltaco 6y ago

False equivalency. Hospitals don't overflow with flu patients every winter. Meanwhile just in Italy and NY, hospitals were overflowing with Covid patients with only a fraction of people exposed to it compared to the billions exposed to the flu every year. Same with the number of deaths. 65,000 in a really bad flu season in the US with hundreds of millions exposed to it, and Covid already has exceed that with only about 20% exposed to the virus.

fastball 6y ago
It's not a false equivalency because I'm not saying the two diseases are equivalent. I'm asking where we draw the line. Yes the flu is less severe than COVID-19. The question is not which is worse. It is how many lives do we need to save with these measures in order to make it "worth it"? Who determines that? How do we determine that? We apparently decided it is worth it for COVID-19. Ok, but then why not for the flu. It kills people too, just not as many. What about something in between the flu in COVID in terms of lethality?
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  I don’t know what to tell you, we should have probably banned tobacco a long time ago. You’re arguing against a kafkacracy, not scientists.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 6y ago
  > Ok, but then why not for the flu. It kills people too, just not as many. Literally because of "just not as many" part. Yes, real world policies do some cold calculations about "how many people die" and have arbitrary lines. Arbitrary lines are actually ok. Better then arbitrary line on either "never ever" or "totally all the time" extreme. Also, we literally close schools when flu get out of control in some area - for a week or so and that is enough for flu to get under control. There is also huge push for flu vaccines each year. It is not true that no flu management is done, there is a lot of flu management going on. Like, I dont know whether it is consequences of two party system, but the whole "we either lock everything for every reason or never nothing at all" and "we cant possibly think in probabilities and death rates and nuance" is frankly, idiotic.

WildParser 6y ago

Do lockdowns help? A lot of countries with hard lockdowns had really bad curves. A slow fire maybe sometimes burns better. A place where everybody gets infected can maybe be more dangerous for visitors when you increase the time the infection is going on?! Do masks help? Do they reduce immunity by eliminating some light contacts? Do they allow to transfer the virus without being infected? For sure you wouldn't like to have doctors (treating e.g. Ebola patients) go shopping and exhaling through their contaminated masks. Is there any epidemiological evidence that masks helped? Data using "reporting date" often shows trend changes around mask measures. Taking a look at "date of death" data those trend changes usually are gone. Why is so little "date of death" data available?

afpx 6y ago

In the US, 40,000 deaths per year for typical flu. Currently, we have 275,0000 deaths from covid over 9 months even with social interventions. And, that’s not considering the under-reporting of deaths. And, before March 2021, we’ll see another 200k deaths. Where do we draw the line? As with most complex things, it requires a careful balance of trade-offs. And, when there’s a lot of uncertainty and risk, it’s good to be cautious at first.

collyw 6y ago

It would be reasonable to conclude that countries where mask wearing is common (South Korea, Japan) would have lower rates of deaths from flu. It doesn't appear to be the case.